The Verge: How we built a copyright strike

[Spotty]

3 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

If it was automatic then why did it take so long?

The verge must have built the computer that handles automatic takedown notices.

[MrRavens]

Lol, oh no! I loved that video too.

[Emberstone]

Does anyone have a re-upload? Surely someone does. I share that video all the time.

[Fasauceome]

9 minutes ago, mxk. said:

not even women, we have a term called "man-thot"

Or you can just call a man a thot, just as funny and still in the same context.

[Spotty]

3 minutes ago, Emberstone said:

Does anyone have a re-upload? Surely someone does. I share that video all the time.

There are some re-uploads on YouTube from dummy amounts, however those are definitely copyright infringement (of bitwits content), so I'm not going to link them or recommend you watch them.

Apparently the video is still available on floatplane if you're a member and signed up to bitwit.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Spotty

[mxk]

2 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Or you can just call a man a thot, just as funny and still in the same context.

The term as kind of died out where I go to school. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, BuckGup said:

That's not how copyright and free use work. He clearly modified the orginal in some way which is fair use. If you just reupload the whole thing then yeah it deserves to be taken down but this is not that

It's a blurry line tbh, like how music copyright is in YouTube videos as the bot picks it up, it's still a sample of the content. Could have been avoided if he spoke to The Verge beforehand (which if he did and they still claimed it would be pretty terrible).

[Chett_Manly]

Attacking Kyle with false copystrike claims.   Yet another copyright holder abusing copyright law to suppress fair use protected speech! The US District Attorney's Office needs to be like:

 

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

It's a blurry line tbh, like how music copyright is in YouTube videos as the bot picks it up, it's still a sample of the content. Could have been avoided if he spoke to The Verge beforehand (which if he did and they still claimed it would be pretty terrible).

It falls under parody which is part of fair use and there are many examples which show what he did is just fine and he does NOT have to speak to them first to get their permission.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lurick said:

It falls under parody which is part of fair use and there are many examples which show what he did is just fine and he does NOT have to speak to them first to get their permission.

It's not really suitable due to YouTube's system being abused to have that assumption that it will be fine. Minimising risk is very important, if he talked to The Verge beforehand, it means it would be much easier to get that copy strike removed. 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

@mr moose

DMCA doesn't not apply to Youtube but their status is a DMCA Safe Harbor which means they are largely protected from DMCA as long as they have their own copyright enforcement system, that system is not under the provisions of the DMCA itself so false claims are not legally punishable because they were not filed under the DMCA system.. Youtube must still comply with DMCA notices submitted to them, that is from an external entity to Youtube but that external entity could be a Youtube content creator not using the Youtube copyright system i.e. Content ID or Partner Agreement.

 

How Youtube handles copyright strikes differs depending on if you flag a video using the Youtube system or submit a DMCA to Youtube for an infringing video.

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals

 

Why is it that Youtube has it's own copyright enforcement process? Because in a way it's to legally protect anyone making a counter claim, which means you are more likely to do so. That's an important thing for a user generated content platform without access to legal services to make sure they aren't stepping in a huge legal hole by making a DMCA counter claim.

 

Larger entities can prefer to use a DMCA instead of Content ID because they know it's very unlikely to be counter claimed, I doubt Kyle will. A Partner Agreement is another special case where you don't even get the right to counter the claim, however you don't get a copyright strike when that is used.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3045545

 

 

 

Most people get nailed by the Content ID system or Partner Agreement with music companies, that fact that Kyle's video was taken down immediately leads me to believe it was an actual DMCA notice, doubt Vox has a Partner Agreement. So in short a Content ID flag is not a DMCA takedown notice so you can't submit a DMCA counter notice nor a nuisance/false DMCA claim, you must first use the Youtube dispute resolution process.

That's what I've been saying

 

[Tsuki]

on the plus side,  hes big enough to have a personal rep at youtube he can call to fix this.  smaller channels are going to get dumpstered.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's what I've been saying

Except if it's a Content ID copyright flag then you cannot DMCA counter claim nor be protected by DMCA abuse protections. There's a lot of situations with the Youtube copyright system where DMCA is not strictly in use or a DMCA takedown notice used.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Except if it's a Content ID copyright flag then you cannot DMCA counter claim nor be protected by DMCA abuse protections. There's a lot of situations with the Youtube copyright system where DMCA is not strictly in use or a DMCA takedown notice used.

The whole reason it exists is to satisfy the DMCA safe harbor protections. According to the DMCA, youtube is under no obligation to remove or hide a video unless it receives a DMCA take down notice. At which point it is protected under the safe harbor (because it has this system in place).  By removing a video that was not issued an official take down notice, they are not technically protected from legal recourse.

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

By removing a video that was not issued an official take down notice, they are not technically protected from legal recourse.

Correct but legally what is the argument you are going to use? Breach of contract? I agree there should be some kind of legal challenge to Youtube about their process as it does actually effect businesses and their operation, in effect they are acting as a judicial system with final say over all matters so maybe you could argue they are acting beyond the legal capacity they should be allowed to.

[Mooshi]

Calling The Verge dog shit is offensive to dog shit.

[TempestCatto]

15 hours ago, floofer said:

Well if he used their media without their consent, there you go. 

I think in copyright laws, if he parody'd it or something to that degree, then he's actually perfectly legal.

 

YouTube wants to do away with the dislike button because people abuse it (actually criticize things they dislike). Now they have a copyright system that sees the same kind of "abuse" and yet they don't want to remove or change it. YouTube is doomed to fail at this point. The most I watch anymore is anything RT related, and they post everything on their own website, uncensored, uncut, etc. Sure, YouTube should be a nice, clean, safe place. But this is a bit much anymore. Content creators are just gonna use Square Space to create their own sites and upload there, unrestricted. And I say, more power to them!

[Trik'Stari]

How long before a class action is formed against Youtube for its copyright strike system?

 

Or are they under the protection of some bogus EULA section claiming that you wave the right to sue?

[Guest]

Seems like this took a while, so I was surprised. I wonder if they also striked the re-uploads. Somebody probably already re-uploaded the bitwit one already, though. Plus, there were a ton of other reaction videos out there that got a lot of views, and none of those got striked. I have some really mixed emotions about this.

[Triventular]

10 hours ago, imreloadin said:

I think that was someone who made a gameplay video for a football game and then Family Guy used the clip in their show and Fox claimed the dude's video that they lifted it from...

it was logan paul (not sure if him or his brother) who used a clip of a youtuber's (forgot the name) fortnite gameplay.. the clip they used was just a person in fortnite literally just dropping down.. they didnt even bother cropping the video to remove the name of the youtuber on the left side of the screen.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

I think Paul gave great input on this issue and how it could have been addressed by the Verge. Stick till the end if you want to watch it.

 

[williamcll]

The only way to fix this is to have major corporate channels get copystriked and then youtube will care to fix it.

[BananaInSandals]

A second YouTuber's vid/stream got strike as well  ReviewTechUSA got a strike for his stream commentating The Verge's vid

 

 

 

[cmusic52]

Me? I think its completely appalling for The Verge to try to fix what videos you see when you search the verge by issuing Copyright Takedowns on the Videos that show up on the list that they don't like. its sensorship to try to fix their public image... and I don't think it ever should have gotten past the first person at Youtube as those videos were clearly Fair Use.  

 

You might as well think of The Verge as The Mafia now according to their own article they released while issuing the takedowns about how Copyright Strikes can be used for blackmail or somethin like that

[trogdor0]

This shirt will never be irrelevant: https://teespring.com/shop/keepondiggin 

 

The Verge just keeps on digging. No one has really been talking about the video for a few months now; they could have just let it be and moved on. No...they decided to bring it back for another news cycle.